Sure... when Sampras was dominating because the courts were well suited to his game, that was fine, when Fed&co dominate because these courts are suitable to their game, then it's devaluation Just because you dislike something doesn't mean it's worth less - it's fine if you want to be a self-proclaimed judge&jury, but it's just a lot of hot air.

Dude, if you're not going to read what I am writing then there is no real point in discussing it.

Sampras played in an era when one surface was highly suited to his game (grass) two less so, and a fourth completely hostile to it (clay). Nowadays all surfaces pretty much suit all players. There are some differences but they are pretty minimal by comparison. Additionally the nature of the modern game (defensive-oriented) discourages upsets. It's a much better situation to be the top player in.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that if you were the Tour's dominant player for a year in the 80s or 90s, you were a contender for less titles in that period than if you are the Tour's dominant player for a year in the 2010s. That is going to result in the top players accumulating more slams.

As for who is better, depends what people value more. Of course Nole Fools will gloat that he is already better without actually taking things into consideration that court conditions are so different to what Becker/Edberg experienced and how this imapcted on their results.

The other side is everything was better in the old days, which isn't true either. Like anything some things evolve for the better and others for the worse. Sure there were actually varied surfaces that required different skills to succeed.

Faster surfaces were too quick at the time. This led to what we have now with homogonised surfaces, which has gone too far the other way. While good for the marketing department and business people for the ATP in increased money, has taken away certain aspects of surface specialisation. Now they play the same game on all surfaces barring the movement side.

__________________“ On Nadal bumping him on the changeover, Rosol said: "It's ok, he wanted to take my concentration; I knew he would try something".

Wilander on Dimitrov - "He has mind set on imitating Federer and yes it looks good. But he has no idea what to do on the court".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filo V.

I definitely would have preferred Gaba winning as he needs the points much more, but Jan would have beaten him anyway. I expect Hajek to destroy Machado, like 6-1 6-2.

As for who is better, depends what people value more. Of course Nole Fools will gloat that he is already better without actually taking things into consideration that court conditions are so different to what Becker/Edberg experienced and how this imapcted on their results.

The other side is everything was better in the old days, which isn't true either. Like anything some things evolve for the better and others for the worse. Sure there were actually varied surfaces that required different skills to succeed.

Faster surfaces were too quick at the time. This led to what we have now with homogonised surfaces, which has gone too far the other way. While good for the marketing department and business people for the ATP in increased money, has taken away certain aspects of surface specialisation. Now they play the same game on all surfaces barring the movement side.

Dude, if you're not going to read what I am writing then there is no real point in discussing it.

Sampras played in an era when one surface was highly suited to his game (grass) two less so, and a fourth completely hostile to it (clay). Nowadays all surfaces pretty much suit all players. There are some differences but they are pretty minimal by comparison. Additionally the nature of the modern game (defensive-oriented) discourages upsets. It's a much better situation to be the top player in.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that if you were the Tour's dominant player for a year in the 80s or 90s, you were a contender for less titles in that period than if you are the Tour's dominant player for a year in the 2010s. That is going to result in the top players accumulating more slams.

I am not sure what is so difficult to understand about that.

I wouldn't call the differences minimal. If they were minimal, then the GS wins of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic would be much more evenly spread across all four events than they are.

Dude, if you're not going to read what I am writing then there is no real point in discussing it.

Sampras played in an era when one surface was highly suited to his game (grass) two less so, and a fourth completely hostile to it (clay). Nowadays all surfaces pretty much suit all players. There are some differences but they are pretty minimal by comparison.

Clay in 2013 is not different from clay in 1993. Let me spell it out to you:

Nowadays all (top) players are well adapted to pretty much all surfaces, not the other way around.

Dude, if you're not going to read what I am writing then there is no real point in discussing it.

Sampras played in an era when one surface was highly suited to his game (grass) two less so, and a fourth completely hostile to it (clay). Nowadays all surfaces pretty much suit all players. There are some differences but they are pretty minimal by comparison. Additionally the nature of the modern game (defensive-oriented) discourages upsets. It's a much better situation to be the top player in.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that if you were the Tour's dominant player for a year in the 80s or 90s, you were a contender for less titles in that period than if you are the Tour's dominant player for a year in the 2010s. That is going to result in the top players accumulating more slams.

I am not sure what is so difficult to understand about that.

The problem which you fail to see is that you build your whole case on mere three players, one of which would 100% dominate in any era, other would 100% dominate clay in any era and very likely be in a good chance to get a slam or two on other surfaces. You only have some semblance of a case with Djokovic, but even he is currently at his very best on slow and medium fast HC, and not on grass.

If everything suits everyone why Murray doesn't have a single finals on clay, let alone a title? Why Nadal hasn't won a title outside clay in a long time?

__________________“There’s so many athletes, tennis players around the world,” he continued, trying to put his life into some kind of perspective, “they want to be the best in what they do. They want to succeed. Many of them, they don’t succeed in the end. I’m fortunate to have this opportunity and succeed.”

If everything suits everyone why Murray doesn't have a single finals on clay, let alone a title? Why Nadal hasn't won a title outside clay in a long time?

I didn't say that there is no difference. I said there is minimal difference. It might give one of the top players an edge over the others but it doesn't stop them being contenders.

Nadal might struggle to win off clay but he is still usually a lock for the SFs of Wimbledon. 10 years ago you had Guga ranked #1 and losing in the first round of Wimbledon after winning RG. THAT'S different surfaces.

So, for you, its realistic that No.1 player loses in R1 on any tournament? Isn`t he No.1? Its not a different game.
It is MUCH better now. Tennis was boring in S&V era, and required much less skill and atleticism. Most of the old players says so too, but i guess ordinary people know better.

__________________
Tennis player`s peak discussion is a form of mental masturbation.

Nadal might struggle to win off clay but he is still usually a lock for the SFs of Wimbledon. 10 years ago you had Guga ranked #1 and losing in the first round of Wimbledon after winning RG. THAT'S different surfaces.

No, THAT's different players. Did Guga win 7 RGs in 8 years? Did he win 16 clay Masters (and counting)? Are you trying to say Nadal is a random clay courter and Fed just a random hard court specialist?

__________________“There’s so many athletes, tennis players around the world,” he continued, trying to put his life into some kind of perspective, “they want to be the best in what they do. They want to succeed. Many of them, they don’t succeed in the end. I’m fortunate to have this opportunity and succeed.”

No, THAT's different players. Did Guga win 7 RGs in 8 years? Did he win 16 clay Masters (and counting)? Are you trying to say Nadal is a random clay courter and Fed just a random hard court specialist?

It's representative of an era when surfaces required even the best players to be specialists, either in full or in part. The modern game allows players to play one game on all surfaces and the best players will be very successful on all of them.

To say that the top players have slight preferences for one surface over another is proof that homogenisation is a myth is just silly. It's not just about the top 4 - at every single slam you see the vast majority of seeds playing to their ranking. 10 years ago it just wasn't the case. You'd have low and unseeded players in SFs, top seeds regularly losing in the first few rounds, and so forth.

Modern surfaces are designed to be predictable and put the same players in a position to win every single tournament. Why? Big names bring dollars. It's in the best interests of organisers to make sure that the top players have the chance to win as many tournaments as possible. And the top players benefit from that. Hence their bigger slam counts.

It's representative of an era when surfaces required even the best players to be specialists, either in full or in part. The modern game allows players to play one game on all surfaces and the best players will be very successful on all of them.

To say that the top players have slight preferences for one surface over another is proof that homogenisation is a myth is just silly. It's not just about the top 4 - at every single slam you see the vast majority of seeds playing to their ranking. 10 years ago it just wasn't the case. You'd have low and unseeded players in SFs, top seeds regularly losing in the first few rounds, and so forth.

Modern surfaces are designed to be predictable and put the same players in a position to win every single tournament. Why? Big names bring dollars. It's in the best interests of organisers to make sure that the top players have the chance to win as many tournaments as possible. And the top players benefit from that. Hence their bigger slam counts.